{{$store.state.data.search.serverData.config.placeholder}}

{{ vm.heading }}

{{ vm.closeTabLabel }}

Notice of updates
!

Since the last time you logged in our privacy statement has been updated. We want to ensure that you are kept up to date with any changes and as such would ask that you take a moment to review the changes. You will not continue to receive KPMG subscriptions until you accept the changes.

Hi
!

Our privacy policy has been updated since the last time you logged in

We want to make sure you're kept up to date. Please take a moment to review these changes. You will not receive KPMG subscription messages until you agree to the new policy.

Close

Hi!

Evolving asset management regulation

An end to post-financial crisis consensus?

After the financial crisis, regulators around the globe agreed common aims.

Europe and the US have long played different mood music in terms of regulation.

Europe and the US have long played different mood music in terms of regulation and the need to control markets. But in the aftermath of the financial crisis, US, European and Asian policymakers were pretty much agreed about the need for rule-making to reduce systemic risk. Their shared aims were to enhance the integrity of markets and to reduce risks for individual and end-investors. Less than a decade later, that consensus appears to be gone.

The US administration believes the consensus now encumbers its huge asset management industry, which dominates at both domestic and global levels. There is now a desire to deregulate and take a path that forks dramatically from that of global regulators in general and of the EU in particular.

Meanwhile, US and other regulators around the globe are evolving their supervisory approach and seeking increased resources, but for different reasons.